Guns: A new level of buffoonery at the statehouse.

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)
Man with Gun

Eleven senators and 7 members of the Colorado house, all Republican, have sunk to new lows of legislative buffoonery – SB 13-062. (It’s short, I urge you to go and look at it.) В For those of you who don’t follow links as a matter of principle let me give you a brief explanation of what the bill does:

If you own a “private business” that is open to the public (bar, restaurant, grocery store, coffee shop, law office, dentist’s office etc.) and you prohibit the carrying of firearms, whether concealed or open, on the premises of theВ business, where such carrying would otherwise beВ permitted under law, you are strictly liable (liability without proof of negligence or fault on your part) for any injury or loss one of your customers may suffer at the hand of anyone else – robber, nutcase, etc. – unless you hire at least one armed security guard.

As if owning and running a small business isn’t hard enough, these nitwits (I know name calling is not the preferred method ofВ political discourse, but I just couldn’t come up with anything else – actually, В I could, but it would have been worse.) want to strap small businesses with extraordinary costs just to allow gun nuts the ability to bring their tools of death into my business. “What costs?” you may ask.

The first would be insurance. Since the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Second Amendment and right wing state legislatures have expanded the ability to carry concealed weapons, the insurance industry has taken note. The risk of liability is substantially higher if there are guns in a business. Therefore, liability policies where guns are allowed carry substantially higher premiums than policies for businesses that prohibit guns. One of the reasons that businesses prohibit firearms is that they can’t afford or don’t want to pay for the extra insurance.

“Ah,” you say, “then prohibit guns and hire an armed guard.” Sorry, but hiring an armed guard brings not only the wages of the guard but the liability insurance cost of having an armed guard. These combined costs would even be higher.

Finally, the expanded – no-fault – liability placed on businesses that prohibit guns and can’t afford to hire guards will generally increase insurance premiums. As is stands now, the business is not liable for the wrongs committed by someone outside the business unless the business is somehow found negligent. However, this bill would make the business liable for all injuries suffered by a customer at the hands of anyone else regardless of fault. (The bill essentially stands for the proposition that prohibiting all guns – even those of an armed security guard – from your business is per se negligence.) Insurance companies will deal with this added liability by jacking business liability insurance premiums.

What champions of business these nitwits are.


13 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    Wow…what a great deal if you happen to be in the insurance business…or the rent-a-cop business. Ever notice how many cops run for public office? They know a great scam when they see one. I must admit, however, that I don’t see the name King among the Senate sponsors. I am surprised by that. Could it be that I have misjudged the good Senator?

    Nah…probably not.

  2. DaftPunkDaftPunk says:


    Civil rights laws stating that your business, open to the public, may not exclude minorities is a restriction of private property rights.

    Gun laws stating that your business, open to the public, may not exclude gun carriers is a necessary intrusion of government into private commerce.

  3. The realistThe realist says:

    And of course the RMGO’s guy Baumgardner is one of the sponsors.

    Another campus shooting just now being reported, in the Houston area – multiple people hit.

    • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

      No “gun-free zone” this, apparently there was a shoot-out and a victim of crossfire, according to Thom Hartmann.

      • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

        Perfect! If only we had more idiots running around that school with guns.

        • harrydobyharrydoby says:

          According to reports, it was an argument that got out of hand, followed closely by guns in hand:

          Virtual blockquote:
          Eyewitness Account: CNN: “An unidentified Lone Star College student who says she witnessed some of the shooting told CNN affiliate KHOU that an argument between two people preceded the gunfire. A gunman, she said, told someone: ‘I don’t want to fight you; I’m not trying to go to jail.’ The witness appeared to reference only one gunman; it wasn’t clear whether she saw a second gunman. She said he ‘actually turned away from the situation’ at first but eventually pulled a gun out of a backpack. She said she heard about nine shots. ‘I think it was a bunch of crap that could’ve been resolved and never should have gone that far,’ the witness said.”

          Latest Official Word From Local Police: “The school is under control but still under evacuation.”

          Lone Star Gun Laws: Huffington Post: “[I]t’s worth noting the role that state laws play in instances like this. In particular, the movement to expand concealed-carry laws seems likely to be the subject of some scrutiny, especially if the initial reports turn out to be true, and the Lone Star College shooting was the result of an argument that got too heated. Texas already has lax gun laws. But there are lawmakers in the state who have tried to loosen them even further. As a reader pointed out, just last week, a state senator introduced a bill that would let public college students, faculty and staff carry concealed firearms on campus for protective purposes provided that they had a proper license.”

          End of Virtual Blockquote

          Imagine the tragic consequences if they’d had to duke it out with fists. Might have broken a finger or two. Good thing they had the manly solution of guns.

  4. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Speaking as a business owner – this is a very anti-business bill. It will increase my costs of doing business and for no benefit. I’m thankful we have the pro-business party in the majority to stop bills like this.

  5. The realistThe realist says:

    RMGO’s Dudley Brown and Sen Baumgardner will provide (I presume) the non-regulation of guns perspective at a Gun Control debate at DU Thursday evening. The debate will be moderated by The Honorable Richard D. Lamm, and begins at 4pm at the Newman Center for the Performing Arts. You must RSVP in order to attend:

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.